Fandom Illiteracy - Tumblr Posts

The latest addition on the ridiculous rhetoric of Dany's antis is that the girl feels hungry at the end of ADWD which according to them symbolises her " hunger for power".

Meanwhile Dany at the end of ADWD is all alone in the Dothraki Sea, has diarrhea, retches up green slime, is starving for weeks so of course she feels "hungry".

I understand that those people only read the books to find "hidden meanings" and "foreshadowing" of bad queen Dany but some things aren't that deep. Sometime hunger is just...hunger for food.

"dragons plant no trees" gets thrown around a lot as fact, but i think the veracity of that claim is still up for debate in the books. because dany (like bran and jon and many others) is a narrative symbol of hope and rebirth within the series because of her connection to dragons and fire, not in spite of it. this is because dragons in asoiaf have a much more expansive narrative function than simply 'nuke metaphor'. the 'exclusively weapons of war' image they have acquired breaks down immediately if you recall that the first thing dany does with them is begin dismantling an unjust status quo. she rallies the unsullied at the gates of astapor with cries of dracarys! dracarys! freedom! <- dragons as a symbol of hope and freedom for the persecuted. and obviously they've been built up as an oppositional force against the others. we're told when the last dragon died summers became shorter. in that respect the dragons, or more specifically, fire which is warmth which is passion—very much embodies life against the numbing, deadening threat of eternal winter that the others represent. but fire also consumes, which simultaneously makes dragons agents of destruction, or as adwd shows: the monsters who eat little girls and leave behind their bones. but when dany found herself chained to a false peace which effectively undid her cause in meereen, it was the dragon that rescued her and reignited her fire to fight back—which is to say that dragons represent a wealth of contradictions within the text and this is likely something grrm means to parallel with the others to some extent, by questioning their apparent narrative role as the one true evil. because i doubt the series is gearing up towards a spectacle-esque battle wherein our heroes get to practice righteous, easy violence on a monolithic army of monsters. that feels like it would undo a lot of asoiaf's preoccupation with investigating violence against socially acceptable targets, even if said target is ice sidhe. and this binary between a one true good and a one true evil, i.e. melisandre's philosophy ("if half an onion is black with rot, it is a rotten onion. a man is good or he is evil.") is not something the story takes as given.

instead there's this exchange between bran, jojen, and meera in asos: "but you just said you hated them." / "why can't it be both?" / because they're different. like night and day, or ice and fire." / "if ice can burn. then love and hate can mate."—and i think it's talking about reconciling two conflicting ideas. because the dream of an eternal summer is just as unsustainable as the threat of eternal winter. i think the battle for dawn is more about questions of seasonal harmony. the first line from agot's summary says, "long ago, in a time forgotten, a preternatural event threw the seasons out of balance", so it's not totally out of question for the series to end with that seasonal balance restored once more. and that question of balance and how it can be achieved then works as a metaphor for a bunch of other things. because asoiaf at its core is very interested in exploring big contradictions, like love and duty? how do you keep all your oaths without betraying someone you love? how can one hope for a just, rightful ruler in a world where the systems in place can never allow such a thing? how do dragons plant trees?

you cannot frame dany's arc as a binary choice between planting trees or embracing (dragon)fire. because the fire is hers, it is a part of her, that's who she is. and her character has always existed outside of rigid dichotomies. at the end of agot she had two options, resign herself to a life of seclusion as a widow or die with the last of her family in that pyre, instead she performed a miracle. presently, i think grrm means to explore necessary, revolutionary violence with her arc because you cannot deal with institutional slavery by simply negotiating with slavers like she does in adwd. and the consequences thereof because she's also been set up to be more reckless with dragonfire in the future. but i think there will be an eventual reconciliation there, between her dreams "to plant trees and watch them grow." and her role as the mother of dragons, as a revolutionary figure. because if ice can burn, then maybe dragons can plant trees. they'll learn how to.

Targ stans (sadly, Fire & Blood opened the gates for Daenerys’ haters to claim an irrelevant and unremarkable character as their favorite from House Targaryen, and yes, I’m including Team Black) genuinely act like GRRM came up with the Targaryens BEFORE Daenerys and just coincidentally had Aegon the Conqueror, Aegon III, Queen Rhaenys, Alysanne, Rhaena the Black Bride saying or doing the same or similar things as Daenerys.

Like do they think GRRM wrote Daenerys saying “a queen must listen to all, the highborn and the low…” in ASOS (2000) and then wrote Alysanne saying “above all else, a queen must know how to listen” in Fire & Blood (2018) but came up with Alysanne first ?

What came first in the GRRM’s head, Daenerys visiting the sick, bathing them with her hands, burying them with her own hands, feeding them water from her own skin (ACOK 1999, ADWD 2011), her people thinking her touch is magic (ASOS, 2000), or Aegon III visiting those stricken by the Winter Fever, sitting beside them, holding their hands and cooling their fevers with damp cloths, those who survived speaking of Aegon’s “healing hands” (Fire & Blood, 2018).

It is incredible to me that they are so stupid and illiterate that they think an in universe historical volume that GRRM wrote just for fun is somehow more important than the events of ASOIAF proper. These are people calling themselves book readers. And again, these dweebs are the only idiots brave enough to spew this bs in the fandom. No Stark fan thinks Brandon the Builder came before Bran Stark in GRRM’s head. Every Stark stan knows that the historical Brandons were ALL built around Ned and Catelyn’s son.

House Targaryen is solely centered around Daenerys and definitely not the other way around, when will shippers and braindead bitches ever get this fact drilled into their heads ?

Exactly, like yes watsonianly/in-world Daenerys would have never existed without any of her ancestors....that's just logical and so obvious it's insulting how people feel the need to point that out to just shut down any discourse abt why Dany herself is special.

It's just plain fact that Dany herself was CONCIEVED AND CREATED before any of her ancestors were and they are written as they are in F&B, PatQ, AWoIaF because GRRM wanted to bring some form of heritage and background that provides more meaning & urgency to Dany's present plot. Yes those Targs have impressive feats or interesting stories of ther own, but they have those because those are meant to explain Dany and Westeros and the relationship there on both sides. Historically and personally.

Targ stans (sadly, Fire & Blood opened the gates for Daenerys’ haters to claim an irrelevant and unremarkable character as their favorite from House Targaryen, and yes, I’m including Team Black) genuinely act like GRRM came up with the Targaryens BEFORE Daenerys and just coincidentally had Aegon the Conqueror, Aegon III, Queen Rhaenys, Alysanne, Rhaena the Black Bride saying or doing the same or similar things as Daenerys.

Like do they think GRRM wrote Daenerys saying “a queen must listen to all, the highborn and the low…” in ASOS (2000) and then wrote Alysanne saying “above all else, a queen must know how to listen” in Fire & Blood (2018) but came up with Alysanne first ?

What came first in the GRRM’s head, Daenerys visiting the sick, bathing them with her hands, burying them with her own hands, feeding them water from her own skin (ACOK 1999, ADWD 2011), her people thinking her touch is magic (ASOS, 2000), or Aegon III visiting those stricken by the Winter Fever, sitting beside them, holding their hands and cooling their fevers with damp cloths, those who survived speaking of Aegon’s “healing hands” (Fire & Blood, 2018).

It is incredible to me that they are so stupid and illiterate that they think an in universe historical volume that GRRM wrote just for fun is somehow more important than the events of ASOIAF proper. These are people calling themselves book readers. And again, these dweebs are the only idiots brave enough to spew this bs in the fandom. No Stark fan thinks Brandon the Builder came before Bran Stark in GRRM’s head. Every Stark stan knows that the historical Brandons were ALL built around Ned and Catelyn’s son.

House Targaryen is solely centered around Daenerys and definitely not the other way around, when will shippers and braindead bitches ever get this fact drilled into their heads ?

Exactly, like yes watsonianly/in-world Daenerys would have never existed without any of her ancestors....that's just logical and so obvious it's insulting how people feel the need to point that out to just shut down any discourse abt why Dany herself is special.

It's just plain fact that Dany herself was CONCIEVED AND CREATED before any of her ancestors were and they are written as they are in F&B, PatQ, AWoIaF because GRRM wanted to bring some form of heritage and background that provides more meaning & urgency to Dany's present plot. Yes those Targs have impressive feats or interesting stories of ther own, but they have those because those are meant to explain Dany and Westeros and the relationship there on both sides. Historically and personally.

I mean, asearchoficeandfire.com is pretty easy to use, right?

they way any quote is always the subversion for Sansa and the destruction for Dany 💀 they are living in their little bubble and hating and hating and hating and it still won’t make Jon fall in love with Sansa instead of Daenerys

This isn’t commonly known but one of the rings of hell is actually being in a fandom wherein the popular bloggers have the worst opinions known to man that everyone else parrots

Fuck this misogynistic fandom

Dany antis' "metas" about how Dany is totally naive about Westeros really shows they just haven't read the books, or at least not her chapters. They'll rant about how she expects the people to just bow down to her, when in reality that was how Viserys (and later Young Griff) thought due to Illyrio's words. Meanwhile Dany, "mistrusted Illyrio's sweet words as she mistrusted everything about Illyrio." (AGOT Daenerys I) Dany knows that it takes more than a name or even dragons to be worthy to rule. That's a major piece of what sets her apart from other rulers in ASOIAF.

Robert took the throne because he was the foremost head of the rebellion and had some Targaryen blood. Joffrey and Tommen rule(d) because of their perceived relation to Robert. Stannis laid his claim based on being Robert's brother. Renly laid his not only because of blood, but also popularity with the lords and sheer number of troops. Robb was crowned because he was his father's son.

Dany knows she how fickle allegiance owed to a name is, she knows how the lords turned on her family and saw the hospitality in Essos fade when she and Viserys had nothing. She also knows simply scaring them into following her with dragons and armies won't work, she scared the shit out of the masters in Astapor and Yunkai, yet as soon as she turned her back they went back to slaving. In Meereen, she had her armies and her titles, yet the Sons of the Harpy constantly defied her.

Dany knows the Westerosi people won't just bow to her when she arrives (though stories of her are causing quite a stir lmao), she knows she will have to fight for her throne and make alliances. She understands that she will have to prove herself to the people and lords, after all, why else would they follow her? Her Khalasar only followed her after she proved herself strong, the Unsullied followed her when she proved just (after she freed them), Barristan Selmy swore himself to her only after observing her for a long period, and the rest of the Dothraki will follow her only after she proves herself once again.

Every time Dany has lead, it's because she proved herself to be worthy following, not because she's a Targaryen or the Mother of Dragons. Why would she suddenly forget this when she gets to Westeros? Well bad writing is the answer in the show, which is why in the books, she won't just become entitled.

There's different character who already has that characteristic: Young Griff. He expects the lords of Westeros to follow him against the Lannisters and Baratheons without question and for Dany to swear herself and her dragons to him and even marry him simply because he is (supposedly) the son of Rhaegar. Young Griff is a subversion of the lost prince trope, he is not only a fake but also exhibits qualities reminiscent of Joffrey (according to Tyrion), so not exactly a great candidate for king. Yet Dany antis insist on putting the sense of entitlement on Dany while portraying "Aegon" as a true heir and worthy king that evil Dany will kill in her lust for power.

Dany antis will formulate arguments against her purely out of thin air and shitty writing. They will ignore any and all actions she has done when ruling and when talking about it, rather choosing to force their fanon ideas on her and give her true qualities to their favs instead.

The lack of reading comprehension in the ASOIAF fandom really is astonishing. I’m yet again seeing posts saying that Dany blamed Elia for Rhaegar’s treatment of her, saying that Dany called Elia an unsatisfactory wife, and ffs, you people need to learn how to read:

“But that was the tourney when he crowned Lyanna Stark as queen of love and beauty!” said Dany. “Princess Elia was there, his wife, and yet my brother gave the crown to the Stark girl, and later stole her away from her betrothed. How could he do that? Did the Dornish woman treat him so ill?”

“It is not for such as me to say what might have been in your brother’s heart, Your Grace. The Princess Elia was a good and gracious lady, though her health was ever delicate.”

Dany pulled the lion pelt tighter about her shoulders. “Viserys said once that it was my fault, for being born too late.” She had denied it hotly, she remembered, going so far as to tell Viserys that it was his fault for not being born a girl. He beat her cruelly for that insolence. “If I had been born more timely, he said, Rhaegar would have married me instead of Elia, and it would all have come out different. If Rhaegar had been happy in his wife, he would not have needed the Stark girl.” - Daenerys IV ASOS

Dany asks if Elia treated Rhaegar badly, for him to have crowned another woman in her place. This is only natural, you know? Dany has only ever heard good things about Rhaegar, so of course she can’t understand why would Rhaegar treat Elia like that. She even asks “how could he do that?”. She clearly doesn’t agree. And as soon as Barristan explains things to Dany, Dany does not dispute him. She DOES NOT try to blame Elia. She says nothing against what Barristan says. And no, her answer is not calling Elia an unsatisfactory wife. Let’s quote her answer again:

Dany pulled the lion pelt tighter about her shoulders. “Viserys said once that it was my fault, for being born too late.” She had denied it hotly, she remembered, going so far as to tell Viserys that it was his fault for not being born a girl. He beat her cruelly for that insolence. “If I had been born more timely, he said, Rhaegar would have married me instead of Elia, and it would all have come out different. If Rhaegar had been happy in his wife, he would not have needed the Stark girl.” - Daenerys IV ASOS

He said.

H-e s-a-i-d.

He said.

He said.

HE SAID.

HE SAID.

HE SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Was that clear enough? Dany is not saying “I think if Rhaegar married me instead of Elia he would have been happy because I am better than Elia and Elia was a bad wife”. She is telling Barristan what VISERYS used to say to her. I don’t know how that is a difficult thing to understand.

r/asoiaf is truly cursed but the most baffling aspect of #that place is how little these people comprehended the books but how sure they are of being #experts. i vividly remember going there and seeing a theory about how the vision dany has in the house of the undying of a man being dragged behind her horse is gonna be barristan and that’s gonna be his punishment for telling her the truth about the mad king. except it was one of the visions of what has already happened, like the one with viserys’ being ‘crowned’. it was the wineseller who tried to poison her in vaes dothrak. and the most hilarious part is that BARRISTAN HAD ALREADY TOLD HER THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MAD KING AND SHE ACCEPTED it. it had hundreds of upvotes. lol. lmao even

What the fuck kind of drugs is r/asoiaf on???

absolutely obsessed with how so many r/asoiaf posts are just straight-up fanfiction

I know people like to blame the show for all the misinterpretation that happened to the characters, but I really wish people wouldn’t forget that the misinterpretation of Dany’s character didn’t come just from the show. There were plenty of self-titled book snobs who dedicated years of their lives to write thousands of metas on several forums and social media (Westeros.org, Quora, Reddit, Tumblr and even Wordpress) about how horrible Dany was, mischaracterizing her on everything, saying she was arrogant, that she lacked self reflection, that she was stupid, nothing without her dragons, tyrannical, etc. Blaming it all on the show erases the role that these antis had in shaping the fandom to be what it is today in regards to Dany. And that’s something that bothers me, because I consider the role these people had in influencing the fandom to be crucial for the view the fandom has of Dany as a villain, and it might have even influenced D&D to do what they did.

Same anon who sent you the Jaime kills Dany Reddit theory. Another thing that I loathe is when Dany haters try and disguise their hate by stating that Dany dying or turning into the Mad Queen is just good story telling. “Oh, I know I talk negatively about Dany all the time, but I don’t hate her. I love that GRRM is subtly subverting tropes with his writing. He’s so clever!” It’s so transparent. I would actually respect these people more if they just honestly stated that they blindly hate her.

And it’s actually quite funny because Dany literally embodies several traits female characters have been villianized and put through hell for… Being infertile, sexually liberated and ambitious. Then there are just so many fairytales about “Evil Queens” in which the one who wins is some patriarchy approved good girl who sings a lot of songs and sits around waiting for a handsome prince to marry. Don’t even get me started on how the most cliche and basic western stories portrays dragons as evil monsters some lame knight kills and saves the princess.

Wanting her to die or to conform to the fallen woman trope is literally the most basic cliche to ever cliche. There’s no subversion or brilliance in coming up with those theories, it just shows that the story managed to tap into the most basic parts of the person’s soul, the subversion makes them uncomfortable and they desperately want to cling to their childish fantasies of “dark and evil queens” and “monstrous dragons”.

DANY IS THE SUBVERSION. She’s the princess who rides the dragon, there’s a knight but he’s a friend zoned loser in a world where Knights aren’t considered heroes. There are no wise Kings ruling wisely, just a bunch of dudes killing each other and putting a country through war for their personal family drama and here we have a queen who is a champion for the common people. She thinks she’s cursed with infertility but it doesn’t dictate her story, in fact, she’s the mother of dragons & Mhysa to her people. As for the sex, it’s interesting that Jon was given the ‘mixing honor and lack of sex’ narrative usually reserved for female characters.

She’s going on adventures, traveling the world, sailing the sea, conquering, ruling, sleeping around with attractive people, taming dragons… like only heroes do, she’s not the heroine holding the fort back home and staying sexually pure. Even her meeting with Jon was such a subversion, he came to her almost as a damsel in distress, was repeatedly asked to submit but stays defiant and acted as a morality filter urging her to do the right thing and save the world. She even comes to rescue him from monsters and he makes a move on her after declaring that she’s not like everyone else. That’s a bad boy/good girl in reversed right there.

So personally to me, those theories are not only transparent but also very funny.